The ITF Pattern Moves That Have Changed Over Time (and/or are most contested)

[BaehrTKD]

I believe the U Nam you are referring to is also called Woo Nam. It is incredibly similar to Choong Jang.

Correct. It was merged into what we now know as Choong-Jang.

​

Please note : the correct name is WOO-NAM TUL, not U-NAM TUL.​

I think it may be a Korean spelling thing. I've noticed significant variety in how things are spelled over the years.

Example: We say Gwang-Gae. Sometimes the Legacy guide spells it that way, other times they use a "K". My instructor said "G" and "K" are similar in Korean.

Maybe the "U" is pronounced "WOO" in Korean because I've definitely seen it spelled U-Nam before.

Source: Encyclopedia of Taekwondo volume 16.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Correct. It was merged into what we now know as Choong-Jang.


I think it may be a Korean spelling thing. I've noticed significant variety in how things are spelled over the years.

Example: We say Gwang-Gae. Sometimes the Legacy guide spells it that way, other times they use a "K". My instructor said "G" and "K" are similar in Korean.

Maybe the "U" is pronounced "WOO" in Korean because I've definitely seen it spelled U-Nam before.

Source: Encyclopedia of Taekwondo volume 16.

Merged? Interesting term.

The methodology of creating an English term for a Korean word is called "Romanization" There were different methods of doing this not always following phonetic conventions. Either the 1965 Text or the 1972 text contains a Romanization table.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Merged? Interesting term.

The methodology of creating an English term for a Korean word is called "Romanization" There were different methods of doing this not always following phonetic conventions. Either the 1965 Text or the 1972 text contains a Romanization table.

And there has never truly been an accepted romanization. Different groups use different methods. When using English to spell words in an Asian language, the only real answer is "close enough".

 

[Earl Weiss]

Here is some interesting info from the ITD website.
Since the politics of Korea resulted in such a great loss of potential instructors, as well as the home base in Seoul, alternative means to certify instructors needed to be established. The ITF for a time being operated out of the successful school network that Grandmaster Park Jong-Soo set up in Canada. He also was the Secretary General of the ITF. When the ITF held their first World Championship in Montréal Canada back in 1974, they also hosted a course for local and foreign instructors to prepare for that major event. The course may have actually been called an Umpire Course as it went over the competition rules, regulations and scoring system. However they also taught both fundamental movements as well as the 24 Patterns in place at the time. The extensive training took place over a 6-day period. That course was taught by General Choi and Grandmaster J.C. Kim (Jong-Chan), who also was the Chief Instructor for the first ones back in Seoul Korea. They were assisted by VI Dan (6th Degree) Instructors Park Jong-Soo, Rhee Ki-Ha and Kong Yong-Il

The 29 senior Instructors and black belts from around the world General Choi was able to assemble and have attend this first ever type of seminar were:
VIII Dan:
NAM Tae-Hi (1 of the 1st 3 Original Masters of TKD, Pioneer of TKD in Vietnam)
VII Dan:
KIM In-Mook (Graduated 1967 ITF Course, Pioneer of TKD in Mid-West America 60s)
LEE Haeng-Ung (ATA Founder)
VI Dan:
LEE Suk-Hi (A Pioneer of TKD in Europe & Canada)
KIM Jong-Chan (1st ITF Chief Instructor & a Pioneer of TKD in Malaysia & Canada)
CHOI Chang-Keun (1st Person to leave Korea as an official TKD Instructor)
PARK Jong-Soo (Pioneer of TKD in Europe & Canada)
RHEE Ki-Ha (A Pioneer of TKD in Singapore & the Pioneer in the U.K.)
KONG Yong-Il (Toured around the world performing with Gen. Choi)
HWANG Kwang-Joo (USA)
CHUNG Kee-Tae (Canada)
KANG Dong-Won (Founder of Traditional TaeKwon-Do Magazine)
EUN Sank-Ki (Canada)
PARK Jung-Tae (Pioneer of TKD in north Korea, a Pioneer to Japan & China)
CHUN Duk-Ki (Canada)
LIM Chang-Soo (USA)
KIM Nam-Kyun (America)
HWANG Kwang-Sung (Former Special Assistant to Gen. Choi, founder of UITF)
V Dan:
YANG Dong-Ja (Former President PanAm TKD Union & TKD Reform Leader)
YU James B.C. (USA)
YU Byung-Chool (USA)
WALSON, Robert (Referred to by Gen. Choi as the leading American authority on TKD)
SEREFF, Charles E. (President of the USTF)
CHOI Ik-Sun (Canada)
IV Dan:
LOW Koon Lin (1st student of TKD in Malaysia, the 2nd Home of TKD)
YUN Ju-Ahn (USA)
POND, Daniel (Germany)
III Dan:
CHAANINE, David (1st Black Belt in Lebanon)
OH Chung-Won (Canada)

 

[BaehrTKD]

The 29 senior Instructors and black belts from around the world General Choi was able to assemble and have attend this first ever type of seminar were:
...
III Dan:
CHAANINE, David (1st Black Belt in Lebanon)
OH Chung-Won (Canada) <<<<<<<<<<------- And that's my instructor right there.

(In other thread, people kept questioning him when I was making claims about him.)

I mentioned that he was one of General Choi's original black belt students (student not founder) and this confirms what I already knew.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Earl Weiss]

(In other thread, people kept questioning him when I was making claims about him.)

I mentioned that he was one of General Choi's original black belt students (student not founder) and this confirms what I already knew.

Thanks for the post!

Well, some info needs correction.

#1 - Not the first course - First one outside of Seoul.
#2 - Since article reflects ITF Operating out of GM Park Jong Soo's school and him a having a successful network of schools and your instructor coming to Canada after the ITF GM Park's presence in Canada would have pre dated him.
#3 - "One of General Choi's original Black Belt Students" appears to be a phrase that is subject to broad interpretation. For instance 1 of 100? a 1000? Also any claim that General Choi directly taught anyone from white belt to Black Belt is questionable. This would be the first and only time I have heard that such a claim was made and runs contrary to all historical and first person accounts of General Choi's travels and never having Dojang "The world is my Dojang."

 

[BaehrTKD]

Well, some info needs correction.

#1 - Not the first course - First one outside of Seoul.

Fair enough, although he might have attended the ones in Korea as well before immigrating to Canada. I don't know what year Chung Oh left Korea to live in Canada. All I know is that it was either in or before 1973.

#2 - Since article reflects ITF Operating out of GM Park Jong Soo's school and him a having a successful network of schools and your instructor coming to Canada after the ITF GM Park's presence in Canada would have pre dated him.

Fair enough. Being first at something means being the right age at the right time.

#3 - "One of General Choi's original Black Belt Students" appears to be a phrase that is subject to broad interpretation. For instance 1 of 100? a 1000? Also any claim that General Choi directly taught anyone from white belt to Black Belt is questionable. This would be the first and only time I have heard that such a claim was made and runs contrary to all historical and first person accounts of General Choi's travels and never having Dojang "The world is my Dojang."

To me it means being one of the first students to obtain an ITF black belt once the martial art was officially called Taekwondo, and to have been taught directly (either wholly or in part) by General Choi in whatever manner General Choi was using to teach his art, whether he was doing seminars, visiting dojos, teaching the military, or some combination of all three.

Somehow that knowledge got to my instructor quickly enough and early enough that he was 3rd Dan already by 1974, meaning the bulk of his Taekwondo training would have occurred in the mid to late 1960's and early 1970's, likely before leaving for Canada.

How many students had an ITF black belt in 1965? 100? 1000? I don't know. Considering what the art would become, and how it would grow internationally in the coming decades, I'd say he's in the first 0.1% of all students who have ever done Taekwondo to get black belt. I'd love to know what his certificate number was.

 

[BaehrTKD]

Anyway, getting back on track with another controversial move:

Pattern Choong-Jang:
Move #34

Back-fist front strike or Straight elbow strike?

I think when pattern U-Nam got merged/combined into pattern Choong-Jang, some instructors continued to teach the original moves as they were from the first pattern. In the original pattern, it is a "Straight Elbow Strike" (also known as an "Upper Elbow Strike to the solar-plexus").

To me, it never made sense that someone would do a back-fist front strike and slap their elbow. (Chung Oh taught it as the original technique, not a back-fist front strike.)

 

[Earl Weiss]

Anyway, getting back on track with another controversial move:

Pattern Choong-Jang:
Move #34

Back-fist front strike or Straight elbow strike?

I think when pattern U-Nam got merged/combined into pattern Choong-Jang, some instructors continued to teach the original moves as they were from the first pattern. In the original pattern, it is a "Straight Elbow Strike" (also known as an "Upper Elbow Strike to the solar-plexus").

To me, it never made sense that someone would do a back-fist front strike and slap their elbow. (Chung Oh taught it as the original technique, not a back-fist front strike.)

Neither . This is a Back Fist high SIDE FRONT STRIKE striking palm with elbow. This terminology "Side Front Strike" tells you the target is to your shoulder line. This is differentiated from the Back Fist FRONT STRIKE where the other back fist is brought under the elbow, and as a "FRONT STRIKE" the target is to the center line. It should be noted that application photos in Vol III and in the pattern Volume XII which may be the same photo do not show opposite palm to forearm. So,, The question arises as what the heck is the opposite hand doing. I have my thoughts but will leave it to you to develop your own ideas.

 

[Earl Weiss]

To me it means being one of the first students to obtain an ITF black belt once the martial art was officially called Taekwondo, and to have been taught directly (either wholly or in part) by General Choi in whatever manner General Choi was using to teach his art, whether he was doing seminars, visiting dojos, teaching the military, or some combination of all three.

General Choi did not teach the Military directly. In fact this was something his critics used against him . Not being the direct instructor - instead having Nam Tae Hi and others be the direct instructor. When I asked GM Nam about this he explained that it just was not done - a General Dealing with the enlisted men in this fashion. That is why General Choi conferred with GM Nam and other seniors and they were the hands on instructors.

 

[BaehrTKD]

Neither . This is a Back Fist high SIDE FRONT STRIKE striking palm with elbow. This terminology "Side Front Strike" tells you the target is to your shoulder line. This is differentiated from the Back Fist FRONT STRIKE where the other back fist is brought under the elbow, and as a "FRONT STRIKE" the target is to the center line. It should be noted that application photos in Vol III and in the pattern Volume XII which may be the same photo do not show opposite palm to forearm. So,, The question arises as what the heck is the opposite hand doing. I have my thoughts but will leave it to you to develop your own ideas.

I believe the opposite hand is emphasizing the fact that the opponent is being struck with the elbow. (Ultimately pulled into the strike.) Just like how we strike our elbow when we do an elbow front strike. If you look at other examples where back-fist front strike is used, the opposite hand is either positioned under the elbow or up near the fist.

I believe the move is an elbow strike to the solar-plexus. (That's what I was taught.) Or at least, that's what it originally was. I'm trying to find a photo of it that shows it exactly, but here is the technique as it was done in pattern U-Nam / Woo-Nam, and recall that this pattern was altered slightly to ultimately become pattern Choong-Jang. (See photos.) Note the similarity.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I believe the move is an elbow strike to the solar-plexus. (That's what I was taught.) Or at least, that's what it originally was. I'm trying to find a photo of it that shows it exactly, but here is the technique as it was done in pattern U-Nam / Woo-Nam, and recall that this pattern was altered slightly to ultimately become pattern Choong-Jang. (See photos.) Note the similarity.

1. It is a matter of opinion - and while there are segments of Woo Nam that resemble segments of Choong Jang I think the patterns vary considerably.
2. Again matter of opinion (because we are all creatures of our experiences) I think the "Opposite Hand" could in fact be utilized and the open to elbow perhaps showing one utility versus the the closed hand under the elbow showing another. Example might be open hand reaching behind opponents head and pulling it into your elbow and closed hand grabbing the uniform and pulling then toward you.
3. Not really sure how the technique in photos would work mechanically. Is the point of the elbow supposed to move forward or does it travel in an upward direction?
4. Although the term "Straight Elbow" appears in the pattern section of the 1965 Text an 1972 Text, there is no such technique listed in the index of the 1965 Text and in the 1972 and later texts it shows the forearm vertical for the straight elbow in the fundamental technique section (This has the elbow moving vertically with the arm in this position) and this is the photo shown in the 1972 Text.
So, it is difficult to determine if words were mistaken when it said straight elbow for the pattern or were refined later for consistency.


.

 

[BaehrTKD]

1. It is a matter of opinion - and while there are segments of Woo Nam that resemble segments of Choong Jang I think the patterns vary considerably.
2. Again matter of opinion (because we are all creatures of our experiences) I think the "Opposite Hand" could in fact be utilized and the open to elbow perhaps showing one utility versus the the closed hand under the elbow showing another. Example might be open hand reaching behind opponents head and pulling it into your elbow and closed hand grabbing the uniform and pulling then toward you.
3. Not really sure how the technique in photos would work mechanically. Is the point of the elbow supposed to move forward or does it travel in an upward direction?

It travels more forward than up. Think of it like you're punching someone with your elbow.

4. Although the term "Straight Elbow" appears in the pattern section of the 1965 Text an 1972 Text, there is no such technique listed in the index of the 1965 Text and in the 1972 and later texts it shows the forearm vertical for the straight elbow in the fundamental technique section (This has the elbow moving vertically with the arm in this position) and this is the photo shown in the 1972 Text.
So, it is difficult to determine if words were mistaken when it said straight elbow for the pattern or were refined later for consistency.


.

Page 54 of the 1965 Legacy guide has it. Straight elbow strike.

Yes, the arm should be more vertical than what I showed in the pictures previously. The way it appears in the 1965 book is exactly how we were taught to do it, with the exception that we strike our elbow with the palm of the opposite hand. (Simulating that we're pulling the opponent into the strike, but also for the dramatic effect of hearing the slapping sound during the pattern.)

The finishing position looks just like the photo in the modern Legacy guides except they call it a "strike with a back-fist" with the palm positioned at the elbow but we do a straight elbow strike and the finish looks exactly like that.

 

[BaehrTKD]

Interestingly, in the 1972 guide, what they call a "straight elbow strike" would come to be known as a "downward elbow strike".

So to be clear, we learned it as an "elbow front strike to the solar-plexus". It resembles an upper elbow strike, but we go forward with it rather than going up.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Page 54 of the 1965 Legacy guide has it. Straight elbow strike.

Page 54 of the 1965 Legacy guide has it. Straight elbow strike.

Thanks - Got it Note that photo on 54 shows as performed in the pattern i.e. Ju Che # 27. - Forearm vertical. But that is an elbow strike and not the Backfist strike. Also note it is simply called "Straight Elbow" Not "Downward Elbow Strike" since the technical parameter for solo practice is for "Downward Strikes" to finish at Shoulder level and this finishes lower.

 

[Earl Weiss]

For ease of understanding please note General Choi's texts are usually referred to as:
-The 1959 Book, which was in Korean / Chinese. This apparently contained 4 patterns.
-The 1965 Book - Contained 20 patterns.
- The 1972 Book contained 24 patterns and Ko Dang later replaced by Ju Che. (Later Editions of this book were done before the encyclopedia existed.
The 1972 Text was also nicknamed "The Bible"
None of the above were referred to as "The Encyclopedia" which was published as I recall in 1983 and contained 15 Volumes nor are they referred to as "Legacy" since that name was later used to refer to CD ROM set of the encyclopedia with pattern videos.
There are some later editions of The Encyclopedia and also a "Condensed Version - Single Volume has gone through several printings.

 

[BaehrTKD]

For ease of understanding please note General Choi's texts are usually referred to as:
-The 1959 Book, which was in Korean / Chinese. This apparently contained 4 patterns.
-The 1965 Book - Contained 20 patterns.
- The 1972 Book contained 24 patterns and Ko Dang later replaced by Ju Che. (Later Editions of this book were done before the encyclopedia existed.
The 1972 Text was also nicknamed "The Bible"
None of the above were referred to as "The Encyclopedia" which was published as I recall in 1983 and contained 15 Volumes nor are they referred to as "Legacy" since that name was later used to refer to CD ROM set of the encyclopedia with pattern videos.
There are some later editions of The Encyclopedia and also a "Condensed Version - Single Volume has gone through several printings.

Yes. The first one I ever bought was the 15-volume Legacy guide on CD-ROM in the early 2000's, along with the pattern videos released around that same time. The name sort of stuck in my head.

I remember seeing the condensed version one time at the club.

Since none of these books have been in print for ages I went and had the 1965 book printed up and bound professionally on nice textured paper. It has a sort of "wine" color to the paper to make it look antique. Looks awesome. That was my Christmas gift to myself this year with some of the cash I got.

 

[HighKick]

Yes. The first one I ever bought was the 15-volume Legacy guide on CD-ROM in the early 2000's, along with the pattern videos released around that same time. The name sort of stuck in my head.

I remember seeing the condensed version one time at the club.

Since none of these books have been in print for ages I went and had the 1965 book printed up and bound professionally on nice textured paper. It has a sort of "wine" color to the paper to make it look antique. Looks awesome. That was my Christmas gift to myself this year with some of the cash I got.

How/where/when did you do this?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I have 5 of the 1965 Books on my shelf. 2 signed by General Choi. One of those I think Signed by Nam Tae Hi. One received as a gift and paid as much as $400 for others. I have given a couple to instructors for various reasons. Whenever I found one for ale at a reasonable Price I would buy it.

 

[BaehrTKD]

How/where/when did you do this?

I forget which thread it was but the 1965 and 1972 versions of the book were passed around in PDF format.

Go to a print shop, give them the PDF file on a USB drive (or whatever) and have them print it for you.

I bought the most recent version of the book (the 15-volume encyclopedia), which was distributed on CD-ROM, but I've never had a hard copy of it. It's nice to finally have a hard copy of something.